Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
=eddie gein;32820252]Reb isn't correct about his Arizona history. The southern part of the New Mexico territory was settled by southerners who wanted to carve Arizona territory out of New Mexico territory. In 1860 they attempted to set up their own territory but the US Congress (fearing it would end up a slave state if ever admitted). The territorial governor was a guy named Louis Owings who was born in Tennessee, moved to Texas (sound familiar?) and then on to Tucson. The early settlement of Arizona damned sure WAS southerners and the federal government knew it. Your puppet government came in during the war and was headed by a Texan named Baylor. The point being is that the southerners were there BEFORE the war.
Yeah, I know about Baylor. But WHAT is your point here???? Yes, Southerners were there before the War. So what about it? There were some in Colorado and Kansas and Nebraska and California too, just as there were Yankees in Texas.
And as PHX pointed out, it didn't last long in terms of who controlled the territory...which was ALL it was. There was no "star" on the Confederate Flag (National or Battle) for Arizona. Even Kentucky and Missouri had that. So did Oklahoma.
Quote:
Why does this matter. Because West Texas wasn't settled before the war. And it was originally settled about the time of Arizona and New Mexico. When you want to say a "sliver" of NM is like Texas I'd have to argue that the entire SW quarter of the state is exactly like west Texas. Hobbs, Artesia, Lovington, Roswell, Portales, Clovis. If that's a sliver, then whatever. In Arizona, it was basically the area around Willcox that was very Texan.
And? See above. There are yankee areas of Georgia The thing is, there are states -- as a whole -- which belong more with each other in definition of a region, than those that might even be closer, as the crow flies. When it comes down to it, Texas has a history that was more influenced by the earlier South than anything that could POSSIBLY have influenced them by a mix of cultures and regional settlement like Arizona or Colorado or Nevada.
If you don't accept self-identification with a region as being a major factor when it come to inclusion as definition of the region, then there isn't much to be said. Other than topography -- and even that is iffy -- the major factors are shared history, political similarity, language, religious affiliation, etc.
Quote:
The whole point of the argument is where west Texas fits in to the equation. It is southern and I will admit it but it is also southwestern in many ways.
Yes, topographically, I would agree -- in some ways -- with you. Where we part company is what shared history and culture does the "southwest" of Texas, have in common with the southwest of AZ and NM, other than superficially?
Quote:
For many years, the Apache Indians prevented ranchers from settling outside the Santa Cruz Valley. By the end of the American Civil War in 1865, conditions became favorable for large-scale ranching in Arizona. The Civil War had disrupted the cattle industry, leaving five million longhorns to overgraze the pastures of Texas. With grass little more than stubble, Texas ranchers moved north as well as west into Arizona. Cattle numbers in Arizona quickly grew as Texas cows populated the area. In addition, the windmill, which was used to pump groundwater into storage ponds, and two transcontinental railroads across Arizona enabled large capital investments by businessmen seeing profit in the growing beef markets.
I know all about that. But the blunt -- even if politically incorrect fact -- is that Native American culture played little role in the settlement and formation of Texas, in the political sense. It just didn't. Neither did Spanish-American culture. The French played more in southern Louisiana than the Mexicans did in Texas, in the overall scheme of things.
And? Thinking about it, now that I do? Do you know that the reason for the cattle-boom in Texas was a direct result of the WBTS? Uhhhh, the disruption you talk about was actually a little more complicated.
It was the fall of Vicksburg that made for the later reason -- among others -- that Texas was referred to as the Empire State of the South.
There was no longer a market in the South, and with most of the men in Texas off fighting the War, the feral cattle multiplied and when men returned home, it was a commodity to be taken advantage of (naturally), and many southeastern pioneers went to Texas (GTT) to take advantage of it. Again, in a nutshell, it was the South that shaped Texas. Overwhelmingly so.
In fact? *snaps fingers*. Here is another example! Those of us in the Old Confederate and border states are likely to eat black-eyed peas tomorrow! LOL
Anyway, enough of this tonight from me. Have a good one.
Yellow part is the republic of Texas. (On a county map represents the crooked counties). This part of Texas is southern in every way shape form and fashion. The other parts of what is now Texas were "disputed" and this is the part I'm talking about. This part of Texas is "different" than the yellow part. Settled later, indian wars, buffalo, semi arid, ranch culture. Whatever you want to say.
Yellow part is the republic of Texas. (On a county map represents the crooked counties). This part of Texas is southern in every way shape form and fashion. The other parts of what is now Texas were "disputed" and this is the part I'm talking about. This part of Texas is "different" than the yellow part. Settled later, indian wars, buffalo, semi arid, ranch culture. Whatever you want to say.
Yes, they were disputed, and those parts west of the now Texas/New Mexico border, were later sold off to the federal government, to pay off some state debt. Now, the other part -- that is, that still part of Texas today -- were a large part of the causes of the Mexican War.
Of course, that area is different in many ways than the ceded eastern half. I never said different. What I am saying is that even most of western Texas (sans the trans-pecos) and, (arguably the deep southern part of Texas) are still essentially Southern, even if they are quite different from the eastern half in lots of ways. BUT? When it comes down to it, the same can be said, in a general sense, of the difference between north and south Alabama or north and south Louisiana. And quite a few more parts of the South. Yet, all in all, it is the shared history and culture that matters in classifying regions.
Arizona has much more in common with Colorado or Nevada than with Texas when it comes to those factors. As was also brought up earlier, Arizona was only part of the Confederacy in the sense it was held for brief period of time by Confederate Texans who declared it a territory.
For all the differences, Texas -- even west Texas -- was primarily formed by a lifestyle and attitudes and way of life that traces to, say, Alabama and Tennessee. In no way, shape, or form, did Arizona influence the development of Texas and, only to slightly lesser extent, could the opposite be said. You brought up census numbers on an earlier post. Roughly 75% of Texas settlers in 1850 came from southeastern states (a majority of those from Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia). That trend continued for many, many, years. And this did not even include African Americans, which at one time made up a third of the population of the state. I can furnish the exact figures if you want.
On the other hand, the western territories were flooded in from all directions of the eastern half of the country and southerners -- white or black -- never dominated it at all.
Anyway, Happy New Years, but here is the map I always thought pretty well roughly outlined the boundaries of the South.
If by West Texas you mean possibly El Paso I'll entertain the argument. If you mean the pan handle and places like Midland-Odessa you are wrong. There is a decidedly more southern influence in west Texas than in Arizona or New Mexico except for a small sliver of eastern New Mexico. In fact you are greatly overstating any southern influence at all in those states. Reb is correct about the Civil War history. The Confederates set up a puppet government in the New Mexico territory and sure there were sympathizers but the Confederates had sympathizers in Southern California too. You wouldn't consider So Cal southern would you? You also greatly exaggerate Texan settlement into Arizona. Sure a few traveled out West but to say they were the majority and had a lasting influence in the culture of Arizona is completely false. There are no monuments, schools, or roads named after anybody related to the Confederacy in Arizona. In fact most people living in Arizona probably don't know the Confederacy even claimed parts of AZ unless they are students of history. When I was a kid we learned about the Battle of Picacho Peak and it was interesting and kind of an odd foot note in the Civil War. It was the only battle fought on Arizona soil even if it was a small skirmish. Nobody looked at the battle through the eyes of the South. We Arizonan natives associated ourselves squarely with the North. The puppet government that existed in Tucson was exiled back to Texas. I'm sure a few Texans did venture out to Arizona, New Mexico, and other western states after the war to engage in agriculture and ranching but again they were far from the majority. Arizona was settled mostly by opportunists with mining interests from the East, of course Mormons, those who headed to California seeking fortune and ended up in Arizona. And most of all those from the Midwest and east discovered that the winter climate was very favorable and those with Tuberculosis were sent out west had a major impact upon the settlement of Arizona. I can think of no major cities or towns in Arizona that were established by Southerners. I don't know why you are trying to rewrite history. You can debate how Southern Texas is and where it becomes less Southern but Reb is dead on. Texas with the possible exception of El Paso is the SOUTHwest and Arizona and New Mexico are south West. Very different altogether.
Before signing off for the night, I just wanted to give this post a STANDING OVATION, and second-rep. Great facts and points and from an outlook that knows their states' history first hand! On a related tangent, I did go thru Arizona at one time on vacation, and was fascinated and awed by the natural scenery and attractions! Hope to get back sometime soon!
Before signing off for the night, I just wanted to give this post a STANDING OVATION, and second-rep. Great facts and points and from an outlook that knows their states' history first hand! On a related tangent, I did go thru Arizona at one time on vacation, and was fascinated and awed by the natural scenery and attractions! Hope to get back sometime soon!
Happy New Year!
I actually LIVED in Arizona too and I will agree with everything he says other than the fact that SE part of the state was settled by Texas cattlemen in the mid to late 1850s in the Gadsden purchase (named after a southerner who supported slavery). The residents living there supported slavery and wanted to secede from New Mexico territory. Then after the war when the cattle industry was at it's peak the Texas/southern influence was still strong. The part LAPHX is talking about essentially occurred after the war and was the major settlement of Arizona and I certainly won't dispute that Arizona's southern culture has been swallowed up over the years. When I lived in Willcox Arizona even in the 1980s it still seemed like a small Texas town who had a history of cotton and cattle in the late part of the 1800s and into the 1900s. Even places like Tombstone that was a mining camp that while settled like LAPHX says, spawned the battle of the OK corral. The Clanton gang had moved to the area from................Texas
My intent was never to dispute the fact that Arizona was different than Texas but to point out the role southerners played in it's early periods. There is absolutely no southern influence in northern Arizona.
However, after reading about the Lack of Confederate monuments in west Texas compared to east Texas. I have to admit that most of the Texas counties named after men with confederate ties are in west Texas and
so that supports your point fully. It also supports your point that east Texans moved west. The country is simply too harsh to attract a lot of outsiders other than for oil booms.
I will further maintain that much like the "mountain" south, the "semi arid" south is significantly different than points east in many ways. However, UNLIKE the mountain south, the "semi arid" south isn't surrounded by more country that it is solidly southern. It abuts the Southwest with which it shares similarities which muddles the picture.
This is sort of off topic but it is interesting to look at this 2000 census population density map of Texas. You can see that the area of the old established Republic of Texas counties are more population dense than the rest of the state. It's just interesting that you can see this even now.
As to the map you posted............ I agree with the map according to YOUR definitions except it should go to further south in Florida and a bit further west in New Mexico to include Eddy county (Roswell, Artesia and Carlsbad). Suprisingly it hits Oklahoma about perfect. Ironically I have lived on three edges of that map just outside the "southern" boundries. Ponca City, OK, Gainesville, Fl, and Alpine, Tx. Gainesville is purely southern.
However, I am ceding the argument of the "cultural south to include west Texas" provided I get to officially call it the "semi arid" south, because there is no part of the south that is even remotely similar to west Texas.
Last edited by eddie gein; 01-01-2014 at 06:57 AM..
Yeah, I know about Baylor. But WHAT is your point here???? Yes, Southerners were there before the War. So what about it? There were some in Colorado and Kansas and Nebraska and California too, just as there were Yankees in Texas.
And as PHX pointed out, it didn't last long in terms of who controlled the territory...which was ALL it was. There was no "star" on the Confederate Flag (National or Battle) for Arizona. Even Kentucky and Missouri had that. So did Oklahoma.
And? See above. There are yankee areas of Georgia The thing is, there are states -- as a whole -- which belong more with each other in definition of a region, than those that might even be closer, as the crow flies. When it comes down to it, Texas has a history that was more influenced by the earlier South than anything that could POSSIBLY have influenced them by a mix of cultures and regional settlement like Arizona or Colorado or Nevada.
If you don't accept self-identification with a region as being a major factor when it come to inclusion as definition of the region, then there isn't much to be said. Other than topography -- and even that is iffy -- the major factors are shared history, political similarity, language, religious affiliation, etc.
Yes, topographically, I would agree -- in some ways -- with you. Where we part company is what shared history and culture does the "southwest" of Texas, have in common with the southwest of AZ and NM, other than superficially?
I know all about that. But the blunt -- even if politically incorrect fact -- is that Native American culture played little role in the settlement and formation of Texas, in the political sense. It just didn't. Neither did Spanish-American culture. The French played more in southern Louisiana than the Mexicans did in Texas, in the overall scheme of things.
And? Thinking about it, now that I do? Do you know that the reason for the cattle-boom in Texas was a direct result of the WBTS? Uhhhh, the disruption you talk about was actually a little more complicated.
It was the fall of Vicksburg that made for the later reason -- among others -- that Texas was referred to as the Empire State of the South.
There was no longer a market in the South, and with most of the men in Texas off fighting the War, the feral cattle multiplied and when men returned home, it was a commodity to be taken advantage of (naturally), and many southeastern pioneers went to Texas (GTT) to take advantage of it. Again, in a nutshell, it was the South that shaped Texas. Overwhelmingly so.
In fact? *snaps fingers*. Here is another example! Those of us in the Old Confederate and border states are likely to eat black-eyed peas tomorrow! LOL
Anyway, enough of this tonight from me. Have a good one.
We'll be eating our black-eyed peas today, for sure. My elderly momma, a wonderful Southern lady, reminded me yesterday while speaking with her on the phone.
Blessings to you and yours in the New Year my Proud Texas Friend!
In fact? *snaps fingers*. Here is another example! Those of us in the Old Confederate and border states are likely to eat black-eyed peas tomorrow! LOL
I'm going to eat black-eyed peas today, though, it's not because I was raised in the South, but because my mom's pretty big on cultural appropriation (). I'm still the only person I know who eats them on New Years.
eddie gein;32823837]
However, I am ceding the argument of the "cultural south to include west Texas" provided I get to officially call it the "semi arid" south, because there is no part of the south that is even remotely similar to west Texas.
I will agree to those terms, eddie! Although we might have to hammer out the difficulties in south Louisiana and Florida! LOL
=eddie gein;32831000]Oops............All bets are off. The encylopedia brittanica sez the southwest is Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and TEXAS....................
Eat that with yer black eyed peas...................
The EB writers don't know shlit! Just reading the desperate attempt to form a true region is more a comedy than a serious attempt at regional sociology/history.
LOL I would LOVE to debate with those editors who wrote it. The same also put Delaware in the South. Now, c'mon...???! LOL
Anyway, when cut into the rind to the melon, there are 13 states where a clear majority of residents self-identify with the South. They are the 11 Confederate States plus Oklahoma and Kentucky...West Virginia is right on the fence.
It has been said before, there is the western SOUTH (i.e. mostly Texas and Oklahoma), and the eastern South (which can in turn be divided into an Upper and Lower South...with eastern Texas part of the latter). But the commonalities are easily evident and apparent when stacked up with the Far West, Midwest, and Northeast. As an analogy, the differences in Texas and Alabama, say, are akin to the differences in Kansas and Ohio. Or New York with Massachussets. And Arizona with Wyoming. Yet the pairs are in the same region in the sense of sharing a common history, culture, speech, settlement, and general outlook and all that implies.
Then there is a southern WEST, where very little is "Southern" about it, as PHX pointed out.
Both can be called "Southwest", but that they are part of the SAME "Southwest" is so loose as to be dismantled like tinker-toys! But though, in all fairness, it must be said the article cited did go to some lengths to qualify it all, so that is to their credit and it was well-written, generally speaking....
But ok, whatever, this one has gone on long enough. I honestly didn't mean to ramble on tonight. Enjoyed it all -- it has been a good one -- and I DO hope you enjoyed your black-eyed peas!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). I'm still the only person I know who eats them on New Years.
